[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 98 KB, 402x402, ss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3497256 No.3497256 [Reply] [Original]

William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name.

He did not possess the necessary literary culture, for the town of Stratford where he was reared contained no school capable of imparting the higher forms of learning reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, and in his early life he evinced a total disregard for study. There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered, nor is there even a tradition concerning them other than the fantastic and impossible statement appearing in the foreword of the Great Folio.

Shakspere's daughters were illiterate. His daughter Judith, at the age of 27, could not even sign her name.

If this guy wrote the plays bearing his name how would he have permitted his own daughter to reach womanhood and marry without being able to read one line of the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous? It makes no sense.

Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?

>> No.3497259

Where did William Shakspere secure his knowledge of modern French, Italian, Spanish, and Danish, to say nothing of classical Latin and Greek?

It's quite mysterious.

>> No.3497266

>>3497256
>conjecture

Alright.

>> No.3497271

Shakespeare was, like all "gentlemen" of the time, a sexist. He probably didn't think it was important that a woman, even his daughter, be literate.

>> No.3497420

>>3497256
>There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will

What do hou make of the Sir Thomas More fragment?

>> No.3497438

It was actually Pynchon.

>> No.3497437

Well, it's not like there's someone out there profiting from the rights to all his works...

But I guess it makes sense to attribute these works to someone, if the alternative is that they became part of the already copious oeuvre of Anonymous.

>> No.3497453

It's weird that we are able to infer what is possible or impossible on what already happened. It's like we can't accept amazing things. It's like saying, I don't know, that Genghis Khan couldn't have been strong enough to travel so much and win so many battles. It's a situation with no exit, because if Shakespeare did write all that, he was clearly as good and knowledgeable as he appears to be, even if we don't know how. And if he didn't write it, then someone else did and we don't know who. Speculation, speculation, speculation. And all of that shows a tendency, whether we are prone to believe in amazing deeds, we are having the opposite effect. Nothing really stands out. It can't stand out! Afterall, not even our scholars today can do better, so he must have been even more schooled!

>> No.3497455

Shakespeare was black, you dumb butt fucks

>> No.3497506

>>3497256
>unaided

Unaided in what way? Is a humanist grammar school education not an aid? A dramatic tradition reaching back centuries flowering under ideal commercial circumstances? A popular culture mad for retold stories of its own history in the wake of the defeat of Spain? A keen instinct for audience pleasing, inside and out of court? Stiff competition from other educated and unemployed playwrights?

Or by aided do you mean that someone did the writing and he took the credit?

>the writings that made her father wealthy

You should know that the writing didn't make him wealthy. Being a shareholder in a playing company that owned a theatre did.

>how would he have permitted his own daughter to blah blah blah

Girls typically weren't educated, even by their own parents. Thomas More is a notable exception.

Fuck off with this stupid thread. Or should we talk about a play?

>> No.3498259

A well-stocked library would be an essential part of the equipment of an author whose literary productions demonstrate him to be familiar with the literature of all ages... yet there is no record that Shakespeare ever possessed a library, nor does he make any mention of books in his will.

No record exists of William Shakespeare having ever played a leading roole in the famous dramas he is supposed to have written or in others produced by the company of which he was a member.

Shaksepeare made no effort during his lifetime to control or secure remuneration from the plays bearing his name, many of which were first published anonymously. As far as can be ascertained, none of his heirs were involved in any manner whatsoever in the printing of the First Folio after his death, nor did they benefit financially therefrom. Had he been their author, Shakespeare's manuscripts and unpublished plays would certainly have constituted his most valued possessions... yet his will (while making special disposition of his second-best bed and his "broad silver gilt bowl") neither mentions nor intimates that he possessed any literary productions whatsoever.

Hmm.

>> No.3498265

what if he was just a genius

>> No.3498268

always knew there was something shifty about that guy

>> No.3498281

Who gives a shit?

When we revere Shakespeare, we revere whoever it was who wrote the work, not whatever bones lie in the grave of William Shakespeare.

When you launch into this conspiracy stuff, no matter how well founded, you are not even tangentially engaging the work as an artistic work.

If you want to play historical murder mystery don't do it as if this is some revolutionary thing. It won't change how anyone thinks of the plays, and rightly so.

If you want to look at the personal aspects to the Shakespeare plays, why not do it like Stephen Daedalus and have fun with it and not shoot yourself in the foot just trying to figure out what's canon?

>> No.3498303
File: 12 KB, 300x500, canvas3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3498303

>> No.3498352
File: 165 KB, 410x314, llllll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3498352

Shakespeare is shit anyway

All his plot lines are ripped from Greek mythology and with exception of a few good scenes, most of the script is boring guffaw

I hate him and I loath it everytime I have to study this hack

studying him now in uni and I want to die

>> No.3498573
File: 24 KB, 285x300, Oxi Clean.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3498573

No.3497506
He was too busy busying himself with the feels of Humanity than to humanize with those related to him.

No.3498259
Doing it for the bitches, everything he said was poetry; why should he be bothered to write it down in anyone's presence.

>> No.3498590

Sir Francis Bacon wrote the lot

>> No.3498603

>>3497256

>Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?

SOMEONE WHO WENT TO THE SAME COLLEGE AS YOU OP. It couldn't possibly of been otherwise...

The moment someone produces proof that doesn't amount to: 'How am I supposed to feel elite when I'm studying the works of a pleb' This shit can be taken seriously, and not a moment before.

At least when people commit copy right infringement/theft/whatever, they are showing an interest in the author's work, challenging little more than a social construct of a payment model. This shit on the other hand is a lame attempt to rob someone of immortality, based on little more actual evidence than you get in the Da Vinci Code. Urgh.

>> No.3498607

King James

>> No.3498608

>>3498352

I bet you heard second-hand that his works are mostly based off of Greek mythology and that is all you ever have to say about him in the form of criticism.

You probably only dislike studying his texts because you are jealous of his skill and wit.

>> No.3498628

>>3498590
Sir Francis Bacon unquestionably possessed the range of general and philosophical knowledge necessary to write the Shakespearian plays and sonnets, for it is usually conceded that he was a composer, lawyer, and linguist.

Sir Francis Bacon, being not only an able barrister but also a polished courtier, also possessed that intimate knowledge of parliamentary law and the etiquette of the royal court revealed in the Shakespearian plays which could scarcely have been acquired by a man in the humble station of the Stratford actor.

There is no record of William Shakespeare ever having traveled outside of England.

The magnificent library amassed by Sir Francis Bacon contained the very volumes necessary to supply the quotations and anecdotes incorporated into the Shakespearian plays. Many of the plays, in fact, were taken from plots in earlier writings of which there was no English translation at that time. Because of his scholastic acquirements, it is most unlikely that William Shakespeare could have done so.

>> No.3498641

>>3497271

This.

The man was a PLAYWRIGHT. Who knows how much of a snob he was?

>> No.3498648
File: 163 KB, 1340x1516, Bacon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3498648

>>3498628

Bacon to your Love, ever cooking;
Steaming every Love to your Bacon:
He didn't return my affections:
"If parts allure thee, think how Bacon Shined:
If wisest, brightest, meanest of Mankind,"
Saith the Couplet of God's Enlightened
Voice to enlighten the Scientist who
Foresaw the New Atlantis in his cold,
Calculating writ to Legitimize
You
And
I.

>> No.3498666

Muslims say the exact same thing about Muhammad and the Quran.

>> No.3499563

>>3498666
Muslims hate bacon.

>> No.3499571

>>3497256
superior anglo genetics wrote it ofc

>> No.3499679

>>3497455

Is that what they teach in American revisionist white guilt history class nowadays?

>> No.3499777

Sir Francis Bacon's cipher number was 33. In the First Part of King Henry the Fourth, the word "Francis" appears 33 times upon one page. To attain this end, obviously awkward sentences were required, as:
>Anon Francis? No Francis, but tomorrow Francis: or Francis, on Thursday: or indeed Francis when thou wilt. But Francis.

Throughout the Shakespearian Folios and Quartos occur scores of acrostic signatures. In The Tempest, Act I, Scene 2, appears a striking example of the Baconian acrostic:

>Begun to tell me what I am, but stopt
>And left me to a bootelesse Inquisition,
>Concluding, stay: not yet.

The first letters of the first and second lines together with the first three letters of the third line form the word BACon. Similar acrostics appear frequently in Bacon's acknowledged writings.

Hmm.

>> No.3499791

OP you are so right.

It was clearly Chris Marlowe from beyond the grave.

>> No.3499795

>>3499777

all of Shakespeare's plays are written in strange units of lexical meaning called "words". But despite what Academia may tell you, these semantic contrivances also appear in the work of FRANCIS BACON, noted tragedian. Hmm.

>> No.3499803

>>3498259
>no record
>no record
>>3498628
>no record
Do you know how much record there is of *anything* from fucking Tudor times? Not very fucking much!

Also the 'but Shakespeare never traveled!" argument is so moronic when you see how shit Shakespeare is at geography. 'The Merchant of Venice' never mentions CANALS.

>> No.3499816

>>3499803
>Do you know how much record there is of *anything* from fucking Tudor times? Not very fucking much!
Then how did Showtime find sufficient material to film The Tudors?

Checkmate, historians.

>> No.3499848
File: 30 KB, 357x269, 1321663250718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3499848

>Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!

Nope.

>> No.3499854

This is nonsense. How many members of the aristocracy are great writers now? Why would it be any different then? No aristocrat was going to know hedger's cant and poacher's slang then unless he hung with hedgers and poachers. They sure as hell didn't write stuff down.

You got me thinking though, Thomas Pynchon couldn't have written Gravity's Rainbow. It was Probably the Duke of Westminster..

>> No.3499859

>If this guy wrote the plays bearing his name how would he have permitted his own daughter to reach womanhood and marry without being able to read one line of the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous? It makes no sense.

17th century England: women belong in the kitchen and in bed and nowhere else.

That makes perfect sense; are you FUCKING retarded, OP?

>> No.3499861

>>3497256
>William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name.
Ofcourse not. It was with the help of Eurocentrics/racist ideals of the time that pushed the above average man to a immortal european symbol of mastery over language.

>> No.3499889

>>3498628
I've read a lot of Bacon's stuff, he's a decent prose stylist, a very clear-headed and pragmatic thinker and an okay poet. He's not Shakespeare,

You know Obama plays basketball too. maybe he's Michael Jordan?

>> No.3499891

>>3499848
you didn't read the OP at all, nor did you read any of the arguments elsewhere

there's plenty of evidence

>> No.3499894
File: 32 KB, 497x500, 1361518086297.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3499894

>There exists no record of OP having any kind of formal education, or of even being literate
>No one has ever testified that OP has a personal computer, or that they've seen him using a public one. Ever.
>Despite the fact that he has displayed a comprehensive knowledge of Shakespearean theater and Elizabethan culture in general, there exists no record of OP having been acquainted with either of these things
>Yfw the only logical conclusion is that Lord Francis Bacon actually wrote the OP, not "Anonymous"

>> No.3499913

>>3499894
Francis Bacon is a well educated, thoughtful and polite man of the nobility. Op is a faggot. There is no evidence of the knowledge understanding and civility of Bacon in OP's post. Therefore I must Reject your theory I fear.

Your's posthumously;
F. Bac.,

>> No.3499917

>>3497256
Damn, he was one swag motherfucker. Get a load of that earring. He just doesn't give a fuck.

>> No.3499921

So Bill Shakespeare, a poor student raised by illiterates and himself rearing illiterate children, who sued people for pennies and brewed beer for money, who mentioned a silver bowl and a bed in his will but no writings, who never was featured in any of "his" plays performed at the company he had a stake in, who possessed no books, according to /lit/, is UNQUESTIONABLY the author of these plays and anyone who even raises an eyebrow at these circumstances must be put down hard.

Hmm. You lot probably think 9/11 wasn't an inside job as well.

>> No.3499922

>>3499917

That's a painting

>> No.3499925

>>3499921

osama wrote the plays

>> No.3499934

OP is embarrassingly unaware of 1.) The education of young boys in Elizabethan England 2.) Shakespeare's love of Ovid and the classics 3.) himself

>> No.3500026

> son's name is Hamnet
> son dies age 10
> 8 years later write Hamlet
> Hamlet is 18 years old
> play the part of the ghost banging under the stage

Yeah, it was definitely Earl of BaconfordsOxfordsire Sir Isaac Newton, because how could a genius be a genius if he wasn't a genius?

Antony and Cleopatra is the best, btw.

>> No.3500053

>>3500026
That's a nice story. The fact is, Shakespeare didn't even exist. "He" was a hoax from the word go and all the Stratford players were in on the game.

The evidence is clear.

>> No.3500072

>>3499921
>>3499934

Always omitted for no one cared and neither did he of rising to massive popularity within his time to keep records of the Don-deeds. They only kept the ones where it would appear as if Stratford was a simple pleb of becoming a Gentleman or perhaps Stratford himself had absolutely no-cares, but writing in his little study, with the only book being of his mind to go to the books where he would then take notes and dispose of them before anyone had a chance to see whether he had obtained them or not, as we know it wasn't mentioned ever. Or perhaps people did see it, but did not wish to share it with anybody that the bro had such a stockpile of books and notes in his casa, as every pleb had one back in the day.

All the evidence suggesting that the bro was as grand as he was outside of his plays was merely destroyed by those who are jelly of the common man playing with Gods words. Or perhaps no one cared including himself for he was his plays and there was no need to take note of eccentricity. Or maybe he had pleb sensibilities where he would be as restraintful as possible in communicating to his fellow lady and lad and have his Plays tell men of their assumptions instead of whirling around in the talks outright for they distracted him, as Mozart only wanted time to compose instead of playing the Professor. But Mozzy was very poor with no time and Old Bill was wealthy in no time. Although he may have been rather lavish and spend it all for the materials he needed for his company.

All in all, there's just to many ores.

>> No.3500084

You need to do some fucking research, several of your claims are outright wrong

>> No.3500086
File: 148 KB, 297x334, 1361496607454.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3500086

> William Shakespeare
> Bill Shakespeare
> Bill Murray

coincidence? maybe I can answer this better if you ask me about Thomas Pynchon

>> No.3500114

>>3500084
Mods, janitors, can we get some cleanup here?

Content-free, outright troll posts like this should not be permitted.

>> No.3500232

>>3499891

Quote OP for me.

>> No.3500613

>>3498608
No I'm classicist and I've been into ancient history and myth since I was a child. I recognised those plots at GSCE, and I've hated Shakespeare all my life despite my desperate efforts to like him because I'm 'supposed too'

>> No.3500655

>>3497256
>how would he have permitted his own daughter to reach womanhood and marry without being able to read one line of the writings

Because in those days woman didn't matter. They were there for raising children, cooking, and getting fucked. They didn't need to read to do any of those activities

>> No.3500720

The better question would be how could a man like Shakespeare have come from a backward ass island like england. In comparison with, other english writters of the time he seems 500 years ahead of them. Meanwhile continental europe had Cervantes, Dante, Montaigne etc.

>> No.3500730
File: 21 KB, 150x200, char_bertie.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3500730

>>3500613

That extra 'o' will be your undoing, pipsqueak. More generally, I think we ought to ban people who don't appreciate Shakespeare, in accordance with Lord Bloom's wishes.

Not for our Bard? You're barred.

>> No.3502573

>>3499913
>>3500730
enjoyed these entries

>> No.3502586

Shakespeare was a theatre fag and theatre fags get around and have lot's of friends.

At his time, theatre fags were pretty hip

>> No.3502593

>>3497256
>William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name.

Conjecture
Opinion
Unfounded claims
Baseless assertion

>> No.3502602

>>3502593
>Ba
>C
>O
>Un

>> No.3502631

>>3497256
Shakespeare read Ovid and the latin dramatists in the original. As for the other languages - he didn't know them. Maybe a little French. Plenty of translations were available, and he wasn't as dainty as us about 'the original,' especially since he completely renovated the stories that he made use of.

>Scrawling
So? His handwriting doesn't mean much.

>No autograph manuscripts of the plays or sonnets have been discovered
Nor have Virgil's manuscripts been discovered. Obviously the real author was a left-handed proto-communist female jew with a limp. Or whatever social group it is you want to stick his laurels on.

>Judith
Female literacy was a matter of total indifference at the time. Can't say I blame them. And he was a stage actor with a functioning tongue - it probably wasn't past his abilities to convey his writing in some kind of non-ink based form... but that's a little fantastical, I'll admit.

>> No.3502653

>>3500613
Only a handful were based on greek myth, and those were filtered and altered through medieval sources. As if even that were any kind of objection. You sound like a flustered teenager who's ready to whine about almost anything in the immediate vicinity as a kind of stress relief. Got some nasty Shakespeare homework? :'(

>> No.3502659

Tao Lin.

>> No.3502663

Tesla went back in time with Wanda Tinasky and Tao Lin (who he transported back in time at the same time) and wrote the plays on an American made Mignon typewriter.

If you don't believe this, you're a shortsighted fool with no knowledge of secret masonic history. I know this because I'm Thomas Pynchon and also, a girl.

>> No.3502669

>>3499803
This. The only concrete thing we know about Shakespeare is that he was born in Stratford upon Avon and died. There's no records of anything about his upbringing. We hardly know anything about the guy.

>> No.3502689

There are pages of a ms. in his hand, at least scholars are in agreement it is his. It's the Thomas More play by multiple authors. Shakespeare was brought in to handle difficult political crowd scenes and it's in his hand. Do your research before you make claims against all the scholarship of people who actually read books and study history, nitwit.

>> No.3502691

>>3502602
At last I truly see.

>> No.3502694

>>3502669
>We hardly know anything about the guy.
Apart from legal documents, records of transactions, and contemporary references. But those won't stand in the way of handwaving relativism, which is just so profound and comforting.

>> No.3502695

>>3499889
Bacon was also quite homosexual -- at a time homosexuality was understood to be the epitome of machismo. Shakespeare was extremely interested in complex women characters, unlike nearly every other playwright of the age.

>> No.3502702

Wrong. He participated in numerous legal cases we know about. He became a gentleman in his time. He made more money writing than any other Engishman before him. He was an actor as well, and acted in plays by Jonson and others. We know more/as much about him as many other writers of the time. Compare Thos. Kyd, who invented the model of Elizabethan theater, wrote Spanish Tragedy, most famous play of the time and the first Hamlet. We didn't even know his damn name until the 20th century.

>> No.3502707

>>3498628
>the humble station of the Stratford actor.
He bought a fucking mansion and a coat of arms. He was humble in no sense of the word.

>> No.3502710

Is there an estimate as to what Shakespeare's was?

>> No.3502715

>>3502710
>Shakespeare's IQ was
FTFY

>> No.3502721

>>3502715
Yes, just let me fetch his answer sheet for the standard Elizabethan IQ test. It's somewhere in my chest of wonders, along with his dentures.

>> No.3502735

>>3502721
Sorry, its so callous of me to ask an intriguing question. If people are inferring the IQs of famous "smart people" like Newton I wonder why no one ever guesses what Shakespeares was.

Maybe they just know hes full of shit.

>> No.3502791

>>3502735
No, it's stupid of you to ask a stupid question. IQ tests have to be standardised for their results to be comparable. That's basic scientific method. In this case there are no results at all, just dramatic poems that could have taken months to write and may have been revised over the course of years.

>> No.3502800
File: 121 KB, 1032x739, ld50f4b48e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3502800

>>3499921
>You lot probably think 9/11 wasn't an inside job as well
Confirmed for troll.

>> No.3502803

>>3497256
Shakespeare. Marlo and Johnson wouldn't have written about their personal relationship with him in their personal letters if he weren't the writer, they certainly let go of other secrets in various obscure correspondence. Unless you're implying this was some massive fucking cover up, you're an idiot. Shakespeare did not write anything that required a full scholars education, all were things any literate man with a reading habit would know or understand. Shakespeare took well known stories other people wrote and modified them to fit with his poetry. He certainly was not creative plot wise, he was no Johnson when it came to humor, but fuck could he write a line. It is not so unbelievable to me that probably the only aspect of literature which one can intuitively master by intake alone, was mastered by someone who learned through intake alone. (by intake I mean reading and getting drunk).

>> No.3502807

>>3500026
>Hamlet is 18 years old

Hamlet is probably 30 years old.

>> No.3502813

>>3502807
Most critics believe that Hamlet ages about 10 years throughout the play's duration.

>> No.3502816

>>3502813
Absolute bullshit.

>> No.3502821

>>3498259
You also forget that plays were considered trash at this time. This was crass and low. Never in Shakespeare's lifetime were plays acknowledged as serious forms of art. Which makes me think it wasn't a serious aristocrat, as most play writes of the era, like johnson and marlo, were getting sloshed and fucking around in the dirt of london.

>> No.3502839

But was Plato a real person, or just an imaginary entity inside Socrates' mind?

>> No.3502909

>>3502821
>You also forget that plays were considered trash at this time.
People who start learning about the Masque performances often get confused on this point. Shakespeare's plays had a wide audience that ran throughout social strata, but by no means were considered "trash".

>> No.3502918

Homer unknown.
Shakespeare unknown.
Pynchon unknown.
All are anonymous!

>> No.3502927

>>3502909
Neo-classic critics thought his work was trash. Look up Voltaire's words on him. His plays were not for aristocrats that knew neo-classic values, but for lower class citizens

>> No.3502957

>>3500720

>England
>Island

>> No.3502958

>>3502927
>Look up Voltaire's words on him.
Voltaire was writing over a century after the fact.

>> No.3502997

>>3502958
Whoops, but there was many critics even during his time where people though Shakespeare was a poor writer because he broke open the possibilities to different characters like Cordelia or Hamlet.

>> No.3503019

>>3502918

A-a-are you implying that they're all the same person?

>> No.3503248

There are no authentic portraits of Shakspere in existence. The dissimilarities the Droeshout, Chandos, Janssen, Hunt, Ashbourne, Soest, and Dunford portraits prove conclusively that the artists were unaware of Shakspere's actual features.

Pretty sure this guy didn't actually exist.

>> No.3505467

it was him

>> No.3505483

Well, we know Shakespeare smoked weed and likely wrote his masterpieces high on weed marijuana.

We also know that he translated the King James Bible and inserted a few subtle references to 420.

>> No.3505647

Shakespeare is a Sun myth, possibly dating to Proto-Indo European times, and the works ascribed to his name are the encoded recorded esoteric teachings of the cult who worshiped him as a deity. The etymological root of the name Shakespeare, meaning one who waggles his staff before the lord in an act of reverence, substantiates this hypothesis, and using a similarly philological method we can discern The Taming of the Shrew (originally The Taming of the Shrub) is in fact a guide on growing psychotropics for use in the cult's ceremonies.

Purportedly, the cult is still alive and active, and the secrets of Shakespeare are heavily guarded by High Priest Harold Bloom.